The Evaluation and Repair Interest Group mailing list with archives at
<http://lists.w3.org/w3c-wai-er-ig/> has discussed this issue sporadically.
That is the group whose charter relates directly to this issue. An
earlier Rating And Certification group mostly noted the perils of going too
far down the road toward a pass/fail designation without an adequate backup
for the criterion.
Al
At 05:54 PM 1/13/99 +0000, Paul Booth wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've noticed people on this list, and within the disability field in
>general like to use terms such as "This site is very accessible" or
>"low accessibility" etc etc... Im interested in how we define and
>measure accessibility and would be interested to hear the comments of
>people on this group.
>
>When is a web site defined accessible? When it conforms to all the
>WAI guidelines? Or is it when it conforms to 80% of the guidelines, or
>even if it just passes the biggest problem points? Is a site
>accessible if the most commonly used screen reader can handle it, or
>when dyslexic people have no problem in changing the font size, style
>and colour? How about if it passes Bobby, or RNIB (or similar)
>accreditation? Or if it is capable of being "rescued" by some of the
>tools that are being developed, does that make it accessible?
>
>I'd be interested to hear opinions & comments. Apologies if this has
>been discussed previously, I have had a look through the archives and
>couldn't find anything.
>
>Many thanks
>
>- Paul
>
>Paul Booth, Project Officer, DISinHE Centre
>Tel: +44 (0)1382 345050 Fax: +44 (0)1382 345509
>http://www.disinhe.ac.uk
>